TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

'Merit selection' for judges? No thank you

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Monday, Dec. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

“Merit selection” legislation that would diminish judicial accountability to voters and enshrine in law attorneys' influence over who becomes a Pennsylvania appellate judge lacks genuine merit.

State Reps. Bryan Cutler, R-Peach Bottom, and Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, propose merit selection for Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme court judges, which requires a constitutional amendment. They'd be chosen by the governor from a list provided by a bipartisan, 15-member nominating commission, then confirmed by the Senate.

Nominating commission members would be appointed by politicians — the governor (six), the House and Senate majority and minority leaders (eight) and the attorney general (one) — so politics would remain part of the process. And with some nominating commission members having to be lawyers, merit selection — advocated as an antidote to lawyers' influence in judicial elections — ironically would codify their influence.

The constitutional amendment would require passage in two consecutive legislative sessions, then approval in a voter referendum. So, voters are too dumb to choose judges themselves — but not to vote away their right to do so?

“The way you have checks and balances is at the ballot box,” says veteran state Rep. Tom Caltagirone, D-Reading, about the real merits of voters electing judges. He's minority chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — where this merit-selection bill must die, for the sake of transparency, judicial accountability and voters' rights.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Greensburg Tuesday takes
  2. Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
  3. The Export-Import Bank: The Senate’s shame
  4. Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
  5. The wind ruse: A failed policy
  6. U.N. Watch: The ‘race’ is on
  7. Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives
  8. Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes